Laserfiche WebLink
property owners, as well as the city, along with possibly providing city assistance <br />to encourage needed stormwater improvements. <br />Further discussion included parking lot sizes; how to ensure compliance with <br />policies and requirements; design criteria for stormwater management standards in <br />parking lots depending on their size and location based on a standard trigger of <br />square footage; and types of improvements manageable for those mid-sized and <br />smaller parking lots compared to larger ones falling under watershed district rules <br />(e.g. Rosedale Center and installation of an underground gallery). Mr. Culver <br />provided another example for the Fairview Medical Center's new wing at County <br />Road C and Fairview Avenue, when just over 5,000 square feet of their parking lot <br />was disturbed, triggering in the installation of one large infiltration basin <br />With Chair Cihacek noting that rain gardens or hard landscapes could also be part <br />of a solution, Mr. Freihammer advised that staff was open to any design at the <br />owner's choice as long as it met the standards. At the further request of Chair <br />Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer clarified what triggered a permit for new or <br />reconstruction based on square footage. However, Mr. Freihammer noted the <br />current issue is policy language in the CSWMP that was ambiguous as to if and <br />when maintenance of an existing lot versus redoing the lot triggered stormwater <br />management improvements. <br />Member Heimerl questioned the amount of pervious pavement allowed, and <br />whether the city would ever encourage its installation through incentives or other <br />means for residences and businesses to install it in key locations in driveways or <br />parking lots to prevent pollutants getting into the system. Member Heimerl used a <br />personal example in his own driveway where a section needed replacement in the <br />near future, and his consideration of a pervious application for that segment. If <br />such allowances were made throughout the city, Member Heimerl questioned the <br />overall aggregate improvement for the stormwater system, an in light of the larger <br />and larger rainfalls being experienced. Even with the installation of larger catch <br />basins, Member Heimerl asked if the city would ever resolve drainage and flooding <br />issues. Member Heimerl noted that the city kept building underground stormwater <br />basins without a global approach to manage stormwater, seeking whether or not <br />pervious pavement could accomplish the goal of keeping water off the streets. <br />Mr. Johnson responded that any improvement for drainage would help; and noted <br />that any producer of porous pavements would have engineering specifications as to <br />how much drainage it would address based on the rock subgrade with it, essentially <br />allowing underground storage with obvious additional costs for extra excavation <br />and rock for that base. By looking at that option, Mr. Johnson advised that a lot of <br />the city's stormwater concerns could be addressed, and should and could be done <br />city wide. However, Mr. Johnson advised that the problem was in the inability to <br />treat all of the runoff coming off acres and acres of parking lots, driveways and <br />other impervious surfaces citywide. Therefore, the easiest way to address the <br />problem was to contain that water on site. <br />Page 12 of 17 <br />